The state of Colorado says: fuck trump

[Dr-epg]

Gentlemen back on the threads topic please

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by tommy156

First Colorado, now Maine. Others will surely be following, as neither of those states are true blue (purple, at most).

Is California "true blue"? Their Secretary of State just decided against removing Trump from their March 5 primary ballot. Funny how you didn't mention it.

Originally Posted by tommy156

Look, if Section 3 of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution means anything, the SCOTUS must allow states to remove him. If the 14A doesn't mean anything, then none of the Amendments do, and this country is fucked.

Well golly gee, tommy, you must be a fucking legal & Constitutional scholar to say that with such certitude! Very logical analysis... if the SCOTUS doesn't interpret 14A the way you do, then dammit! it will vitiate all other Amendments in our Constitution!

Umm, exactly how does that work again? Please elaborate.

Question for you - if Section 3 of the 14th Amendment is so self-evident and "self-executing" that you can deny due process to anyone alleged to have violated it, then why the fuck didn't your DOJ Special Counsel Jack Smith indict trumpy for insurrection? Your boy Jack doesn't strike me as the type who would shy away from what you view as an open-and-shut case!

[Salty Again]

... Those ARE great points there, Lusty.

And it's interesting that The Colorado Supreme Count
(ALL Democrat appointees) have chosen to OVERLOOK that
with their ballot decision.

#### Salty

[eyecu2]

the term insurrection isn't the crime- it's the action. Just like those who are being tried and found guilty in courts for Jan 6th.

Stabbing someone is an action,- attempted murder is the crime.

Trumps attempted insurrection is the action- the crime(s) are multiple;

1. Could be inciting a riot, disorderly conduct, etc.

Snip from criminal codes:
5502. Failure of disorderly persons to disperse upon official order.

Where three or more persons are participating in a course of disorderly conduct which causes or may reasonably be expected to cause substantial harm or serious inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, a peace officer or other public servant engaged in executing or enforcing the law may order the participants and others in the immediate vicinity to disperse. A person who refuses or knowingly fails to obey such an order commits a misdemeanor of the second degree.

§ 5503. Disorderly conduct.

(a) Offense defined.--A person is guilty of disorderly conduct if, with intent to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof, he:

(1) engages in fighting or threatening, or in violent or tumultuous behavior;

(2) makes unreasonable noise;

(3) uses obscene language, or makes an obscene gesture; or

(4) creates a hazardous or physically offensive condition


AND.


§ 5507. Obstructing highways and other public passages.

(a) Obstructing.--A person, who, having no legal privilege to do so, intentionally or recklessly obstructs any highway, railroad track or public utility right-of-way, sidewalk, navigable waters, other public passage, whether alone or with others, commits a summary offense, or, in case he persists after warning by a law officer, a misdemeanor of the third degree. No person shall be deemed guilty of an offense under this subsection solely because of a gathering of persons to hear him speak or otherwise communicate, or solely because of being a member of such a gathering.

(b) Refusal to move on.--

(1) A person in a gathering commits a summary offense if he refuses to obey a reasonable official request or order to move:

(i) to prevent obstruction of a highway or other public passage; or

(ii) to maintain public safety by dispersing those gathered in dangerous proximity to a fire or other hazard.

(2) An order to move, addressed to a person whose speech or other lawful behavior attracts an obstructing audience, shall not be deemed reasonable if the obstruction can be readily remedied by police control of the size or location of the gathering.

(c) Definition.--As used in this section the word "obstructs" means renders impassable without unreasonable inconvenience or hazard.



Cross References. Section 5507 is referred to in sections 3019, 3065 of this title; section 8902 of Title 42 (Judiciary and Judicial Procedure).

§ 5508. Disrupting meetings and processions.

A person commits a misdemeanor of the third degree if, with intent to prevent or disrupt a lawful meeting, procession or gathering, he disturbs or interrupts it

or bigger charges such as; violation of voter rights, federal election crimes, (which are per both state and federal boundaries) and
the bigger one ----conspiracy to defraud, which would include all those items, but is a felony.

Jack Smith didn't swat Diaper Donnie with a few misdemeanors, or minor felonies, etc., but it looking to smash him with a much larger charge, easily proven, and will take down many more of the Trump enablers.


However- to answer the question- The crimes are not simple the label of an action. They can be quite intrinsic and are more encompassing. All you simply need to know about the insurrection- was that people, led by Trump and his direction, created a riot at the capital, in order to stop the proceedings of an official act. There are those who have pled guilty to that to some extent, and others found guilty of that. Trump in all cases was deemed involved ergo- found to be instrumental and part of the Jan 6th, event's and part n parcel, subject to the 14th amendment.

He's also going to get his day in court for the conspiracy part which he's facing, and all the other states (5) so far who have filed criminal charges against the fake electors that were set up by the directive of Trump and his campaign. AND I would also note- that as it was set up by his campaign ppl, it's part of his attempt to be a candidate- vs him being president, so that he cannot claim that bullshit of being general immunity as POTUS. He's gonna face the music if they get a ruling before November. It's a rat race right now to get there, and the SCOTUS kicked the can down the road to try to delay that race.

Colorado was right on their ruling and anyone with sense- knows that to be the case.

Only the cult members would say he's not guilty cause he wasn't charged with Insurrection; It's the "crimes" that support the definition of an insurrection that he is facing, and so were the ppl on Jan 6th.

[tommy156]

Originally Posted by eyecu2

Only the cult members would say he's not guilty cause he wasn't charged with Insurrection; It's the "crimes" that support the definition of an insurrection that he is facing, and so were the ppl on Jan 6th.

You can't have any kind of meaningful dialogue with someone who believes J6 was a "tourist visit" and that trump is innocent because they didn't charge him with insurrection. We all saw it with our own eyes. So did they. They choose not to believe what they saw. It's a fucking cult that will destroy America if the adults at the table allow them to.

[Charley3]

And now he adds to his perception by saying he’d be dictator for a day. He is either stupid or thinks it’s cute.
Jan 6th being just one negative moment thanks to Trumps ridiculous statements.

[onawbtngr546]

Surely, it was a peaceful protest.
Despite the break-ins https://youtu.be/0vzeTgm2qWw?si=1MGAHgpdxLpDrPwU&t=683


Trespassing on federal property https://youtu.be/0vzeTgm2qWw?si=W9ICIu9l_OBXO07o&t=233


Building gallows to hang the VP https://youtu.be/0vzeTgm2qWw?si=yvY9m_zG2B38muBt&t=1443



Use military terminology and actually refer to their insurrection as a 'hostile takeover' https://youtu.be/0vzeTgm2qWw?si=-WgbZM5wNsFVqccF&t=1901


But yes, this insurrection, which as outlined by third section of the 14th amendment declares "shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof." is quite clearly NOT an insurrection! That's so funny.


The evidence is right there in-front of you. Colorado did what no other states had the balls to do first. Declare Trump invalid from being in office due to being a traitor to the nation. No surprise that nearly a week after Colorado did this did other states start to as well. It isn't the kind of thing that you can decide upon in the week.



If anything, in the next week we are going to see more states declare the same thing.

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by eyecu2

Colorado was right on their ruling and anyone with sense - knows that to be the case.

So you're saying the following folks (mostly Democrats) have no sense?

"...I believe the decision as to whether or not Mr. Trump should again be considered for the presidency should rest with the people as expressed in free and fair elections.”

- Senator Angus King, Maine Independent who caucuses with Democrats.


“We are a nation of laws, therefore until he is actually found guilty of the crime of insurrection, he should be allowed on the ballot.”

- Rep. Jared Golden, Maine Democrat


"We defeat candidates we don't like at the polls. Everything else is a distraction."

- Gov. Gavin Newsome, California Democrat


"...if I believe in this democracy... I have to basically continue to abide by the rule of law, and... I must be better than Trump.”

- California Secretary of State Shirley Weber, Democrat, after ruling that Donald Trump must remain on the ballot for the March 5 primary.


Should I go on, or would you like to concede that perhaps some sensible, intelligent people - even (gulp) Democrats - can disagree with you?

Originally Posted by eyecu2

Only the cult members would say he's not guilty cause he wasn't charged with Insurrection...

Good grief! That's NOT the argument. Nobody said he's not guilty. Only that he hasn't been tried, convicted, or found guilty of insurrection in a court of law, where all Americans are entitled to defend themselves under the due process clause of our Constitution.

[tommy156]

"We should let the people decide who to vote for"

Yeah, we already tried that, then trump and his cult tried to overthrow the government because they lost.

Sorry, MAGAs. Colorado and Maine say your boy is disqualified. Suck on that 14A, cum guzzlers. Tastes like democracy.

[chizzy]

maybe one of the trump hating posters here can answer a simple question...

How many of the people involved in the jan 6th protest have been charged and convicted as promoting or causing an insurrection?

think hard

enjoy your laughable arguements but the supreme court will overturn this simply because the colorado courts do not have the authority to do what they did citing the 14th amendment.

Im sure you will all say bullshit conservative judges lol